Wiki source code of Governance
Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2026/02/08 21:21
Show last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | = Governance = | ||
| 2 | |||
| 3 | FactHarbor governance is **simple, transparent, flat, and focused on enabling automation**. | ||
| 4 | {{include reference="Archive.FactHarbor.Organisation.Diagrams.Governance Structure.WebHome"/}} | ||
| 5 | |||
| 6 | == 1. Governance Philosophy == | ||
| 7 | |||
| 8 | **Core Principles**: | ||
| 9 | |||
| 10 | * **Automation over bureaucracy**: Minimize manual processes | ||
| 11 | * **Transparency by default**: Open decision-making | ||
| 12 | * **Community input**: Listen but decide decisively | ||
| 13 | * **Measured outcomes**: Data drives decisions | ||
| 14 | * **Adaptive structure**: Evolve as needed | ||
| 15 | |||
| 16 | == 2. Organizational Structure == | ||
| 17 | |||
| 18 | **Flat Cooperative Model**: | ||
| 19 | |||
| 20 | * Small organization with collaborative teamwork | ||
| 21 | * No hierarchical management layers | ||
| 22 | * Decisions by consensus when possible, voting when needed | ||
| 23 | * Everyone contributes across multiple areas | ||
| 24 | **General Assembly** → **Governing Team** → **Team Members** === 2.1 General Assembly (All Members) === | ||
| 25 | Decides: Governing Team election, statutes, major strategic changes, budget | ||
| 26 | Meets: Annually | ||
| 27 | |||
| 28 | === 2.2 Governing Team === | ||
| 29 | |||
| 30 | Decides: Strategy, policy, budget allocation, hiring | ||
| 31 | Meets: Quarterly | ||
| 32 | Size: small group (Facilitator, Coordinator, Treasurer + others) | ||
| 33 | |||
| 34 | === 2.3 Team Members === | ||
| 35 | |||
| 36 | * **Technical Coordinator**: AKEL & infrastructure | ||
| 37 | * **Community Coordinator**: Moderators & contributors | ||
| 38 | * **Moderators** (part-time): Handle abuse/disputes | ||
| 39 | |||
| 40 | == 3. Decision Authority == | ||
| 41 | |||
| 42 | **Day-to-day**: Technical Coordinator + Community Coordinator | ||
| 43 | **Tactical**: Governing Team (simple majority) | ||
| 44 | **Strategic**: General Assembly (2/3 majority) | ||
| 45 | |||
| 46 | == 4. Policy Development == | ||
| 47 | |||
| 48 | **RFC Process** (Request for Comments): | ||
| 49 | |||
| 50 | 1. Anyone drafts proposal | ||
| 51 | 2. Community discussion 3. Governing Team reviews and votes | ||
| 52 | 4. Decision published | ||
| 53 | **Emergency changes**: Technical Coordinator can act immediately, Governing Team ratifies later | ||
| 54 | |||
| 55 | == 5. Financial Governance == | ||
| 56 | |||
| 57 | * Annual budget approved by General Assembly | ||
| 58 | * Two-signature requirement for >CHF 5,000 | ||
| 59 | * Governing Team approval for >CHF 20,000 | ||
| 60 | * Quarterly financial reports | ||
| 61 | * Annual independent audit | ||
| 62 | |||
| 63 | == 6. Automation Governance == | ||
| 64 | |||
| 65 | **Core Principle**: AKEL makes content decisions. Humans make system decisions. | ||
| 66 | |||
| 67 | === 6.1 Decision Boundary === | ||
| 68 | |||
| 69 | **What AKEL Decides (Automated)**: | ||
| 70 | |||
| 71 | * All claim verdicts and confidence scores | ||
| 72 | * All evidence assessments and relevance scores | ||
| 73 | * All source track record scores | ||
| 74 | * All risk tier classifications | ||
| 75 | * All publication decisions | ||
| 76 | * All scenario extractions | ||
| 77 | **Rationale**: These decisions must be automated for scale, consistency, transparency, and to avoid human bias. Humans cannot process millions of claims reliably. | ||
| 78 | **Human Role**: Monitor aggregate performance metrics, identify systematic issues, improve algorithms. | ||
| 79 | **What Humans Decide**: | ||
| 80 | **Strategic Decisions** (General Assembly, 2/3 majority): | ||
| 81 | * Mission and values | ||
| 82 | * Risk tier policy definitions | ||
| 83 | * Major architectural changes | ||
| 84 | * Budget allocation | ||
| 85 | * Dissolution | ||
| 86 | **Tactical Decisions** (Governing Team, simple majority): | ||
| 87 | * Algorithm parameter ranges (within policy) | ||
| 88 | * Infrastructure investments | ||
| 89 | * Hiring and role assignments | ||
| 90 | * Community policies | ||
| 91 | * Partnership agreements | ||
| 92 | **Operational Decisions** (Domain Owners, autonomous): | ||
| 93 | * Technical Coordinator: AKEL performance optimizations, infrastructure changes | ||
| 94 | * Community Coordinator: Community process improvements, documentation | ||
| 95 | * Moderators: Handling AKEL-flagged items, detection improvement proposals | ||
| 96 | **Emergency Decisions** (any team member, ratified by Governing Team): | ||
| 97 | * Critical security issues | ||
| 98 | * Legal compliance requirements | ||
| 99 | * Immediate safety concerns | ||
| 100 | |||
| 101 | === 6.2 Principle: Fix the System, Not the Data === | ||
| 102 | |||
| 103 | **When AKEL makes a "wrong" decision**: | ||
| 104 | |||
| 105 | * ❌ Do NOT manually override that specific verdict | ||
| 106 | * ✅ DO investigate: Is this a systematic issue? | ||
| 107 | * ✅ DO improve: Change algorithm/policy to handle such cases better | ||
| 108 | * ✅ DO test: Validate improvement on historical data | ||
| 109 | * ✅ DO deploy: Roll out improved system | ||
| 110 | * ✅ DO monitor: Check if metrics improve | ||
| 111 | **Example**: | ||
| 112 | * Bad: "AKEL rated this source too low, I'll manually boost it" | ||
| 113 | * Good: "AKEL consistently under-rates peer-reviewed sources. Let's adjust the scoring algorithm to weight peer-review more heavily." | ||
| 114 | |||
| 115 | === 6.3 Governance of AKEL === | ||
| 116 | |||
| 117 | **Quarterly Performance Review**: | ||
| 118 | |||
| 119 | * Who: Governing Team + Technical Coordinator | ||
| 120 | * What: Review AKEL performance metrics, bias audits, user feedback patterns | ||
| 121 | * Output: Performance report, improvement priorities, policy updates if needed | ||
| 122 | **Performance Metrics Monitored**: | ||
| 123 | * Processing speed (P50, P95, P99) | ||
| 124 | * Success rate and error rate | ||
| 125 | * Evidence completeness | ||
| 126 | * Confidence score distribution | ||
| 127 | * User feedback (helpful/unhelpful ratio) | ||
| 128 | * Bias indicators (by domain, source type, etc.) | ||
| 129 | **Triggers for Policy Review**: | ||
| 130 | * Metrics outside acceptable ranges | ||
| 131 | * Systematic bias detected | ||
| 132 | * Major user complaints about fairness | ||
| 133 | * Legal/compliance concerns | ||
| 134 | * New domains requiring special handling | ||
| 135 | **Algorithm Change Process**: | ||
| 136 | |||
| 137 | 1. Identify issue from metrics | ||
| 138 | 2. Propose solution (RFC - Request for Comments) | ||
| 139 | 3. Test in staging environment | ||
| 140 | 4. Measure impact on historical data | ||
| 141 | 5. Technical Coordinator approves (or escalates to Governing Team for policy changes) | ||
| 142 | 6. Deploy with monitoring | ||
| 143 | 7. Evaluate results | ||
| 144 | |||
| 145 | === 6.4 Human Intervention Criteria === | ||
| 146 | |||
| 147 | **Legitimate reasons to intervene**: | ||
| 148 | |||
| 149 | * ✅ AKEL explicitly flags item for human review | ||
| 150 | * ✅ System metrics show performance degradation | ||
| 151 | * ✅ Legal/safety issue requires immediate action | ||
| 152 | * ✅ User reports reveal systematic bias pattern | ||
| 153 | **Illegitimate reasons** (system improvement needed instead): | ||
| 154 | * ❌ "I disagree with this verdict" → Improve algorithm | ||
| 155 | * ❌ "This source should rank higher" → Improve scoring rules | ||
| 156 | * ❌ "Manual quality gate before publication" → Defeats purpose of automation | ||
| 157 | * ❌ "I know better than the algorithm" → Then improve the algorithm | ||
| 158 | |||
| 159 | === 6.5 Consent-Based Decision Making === | ||
| 160 | |||
| 161 | **For system changes**, use consent not consensus (from Sociocracy 3.0): | ||
| 162 | **Consent** = No principled objections | ||
| 163 | |||
| 164 | * Faster than consensus | ||
| 165 | * Respects concerns without requiring full agreement | ||
| 166 | * "I can live with this and support it" | ||
| 167 | **Process**: | ||
| 168 | |||
| 169 | 1. Proposal presented (RFC) | ||
| 170 | 2. Clarifying questions | ||
| 171 | 3. Reactions and concerns | ||
| 172 | 4. Proposer integrates feedback | ||
| 173 | 5. Consent round: Any principled objections? | ||
| 174 | 6. If no objections → Decision made | ||
| 175 | 7. If objections → Integrate and repeat | ||
| 176 | **Use for**: | ||
| 177 | |||
| 178 | * Algorithm changes | ||
| 179 | * Policy updates | ||
| 180 | * Infrastructure investments | ||
| 181 | * Process changes | ||
| 182 | **Not for**: | ||
| 183 | * Strategic decisions (use voting) | ||
| 184 | * Emergency decisions (use autonomous authority) | ||
| 185 | |||
| 186 | == 7. Transparency & Accountability == | ||
| 187 | |||
| 188 | **Always public**: Policies, structure, board membership, financials, quality metrics, major decisions | ||
| 189 | **Published quarterly**: Activity reports, metrics, moderation stats | ||
| 190 | **Internal documentation**: All meetings, decisions, actions retained indefinitely | ||
| 191 | |||
| 192 | == 7. Conflict Resolution == | ||
| 193 | |||
| 194 | **User disputes**: Moderator → Appeal to different moderator → Governing Team (final) | ||
| 195 | **Timeline**: Reasonable timeframe | ||
| 196 | |||
| 197 | == 8. Moderation Oversight == | ||
| 198 | |||
| 199 | **Moderator requirements**: high reputation, 6+ months active, clean record | ||
| 200 | **Review**: Quarterly by Community Coordinator, annually by Governing Team | ||
| 201 | **Appeal**: Any user can appeal promptly | ||
| 202 | |||
| 203 | == 9. Code of Conduct == | ||
| 204 | |||
| 205 | **Governing Team**: Act in org interest, disclose conflicts, maintain confidentiality | ||
| 206 | **Team Members**: Follow procedures, professional conduct, document decisions | ||
| 207 | **Moderators**: Impartial decisions, respect privacy, respond timely | ||
| 208 | |||
| 209 | == 10. Amendment Process == | ||
| 210 | |||
| 211 | **Minor changes**: Governing Team decision | ||
| 212 | **Major changes**: General Assembly (2/3 vote) | ||
| 213 | **Emergency**: Governing Team can act, must ratify at next Assembly | ||
| 214 | |||
| 215 | == 11. Related Pages == | ||
| 216 | |||
| 217 | * [[Organisational Model>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Organisational-Model]] | ||
| 218 | * [[Legal Framework>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Legal-Framework]] | ||
| 219 | * [[Transparency Policy>>FactHarbor.Organisation.How-We-Work-Together.Transparency-Policy]] |